Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
You see. I just get Meg to start posting over here again and it goes all hinky on me.
I'm all for this escalation. I believe it will bring a quicker conclusion to the whole Afghanistan mess. I think it will help control the situation in Pakistan. Whether we like it or not, we are where we are. I'm not for pre-emptive, Imperialistic wars (ie. Iraq). I believe we should defend ourselves against agression. And that we should defend those who can't defend themselves. We can, and should, pray for peace and a world where we all get along. However, the truth of the matter is, there are folks out there who want us, our children, and everyone around us, dead.
but what about that blakroc song, "if it dont make dollaz, then it don't make sense?
but seriously....I walked into the 2nd job to get the pay check the other day, and i overhear my boss arguing with his grandson, that "if Obama keeps it up, he is going to run more factory jobs out of the states than ever before."?
Please explain. I’m not up to par on most politics. also
also wolfman said "do you really think he would have pulled us out of Afghanistan so he could watch Pakistan erupt into a Taliban run extremist muslim state armed with nukes?"
now..we have nukes, even though "illegal" right? so why should we tell someone that they can not when we do? not saying that it is ok for them to have them, obviously you pointed out, extremist state, which leans me towards..things being in the wrong hands...i guess what im getting at is, should we allow only some countires to have nukes, if any...if so who would and how would you determine who is elligible.
to much coffee this morning...to many thoughts in my head...to many questions.
I believe we should defend ourselves against agression. And that we should defend those who can't defend themselves. .
i see where it is all good to be the good big brother. but is there really a need for us to help other countries, when we have our own problems to deal with, that no body else is helping with?
so why should we tell someone that they can not when we do? i guess what im getting at is, should we allow only some countires to have nukes, if any...if so who would and how would you determine who is elligible.
Well currently we don't really have a problem with Pakistan having nukes. But once they "go rogue" or become extremists then it's bad. I think we're pretty much ok with it until someone wants to use them on us. I think. No clue what exactly America's policy is. To me, nuclear proliferation means mutual destruction. People would be less likely to drop an Abomb on a country that would retaliate with it's own nuclear weapons.
You see. I just get Meg to start posting over here again and it goes all hinky on me.
Sorry I guess it was uncalled for but I have been puting up with crap like this for 2 days now
1) It's the offseason so the other tent rules.
2) YOU HAVE BEEN SNARKY BECAUSE OF MY POSITION AND YOU HAVE ATTACKED ME WHILE MISSING THE POINT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
3) I have been here since 2004 in one form or another and have discussed music on several occasions, Mr. Content Admin. I have provided recipes, tarp tricks, contributed to charitable causes, et alia. But I don't have anything to prove to your limited tunnelvision attempt to emulate yourself OH Swagmaster....
4) You are no longer worth my time since you don't have the balls to fess up to your mistakes and continue to try to roll on the offensive. I will no longer address you in public or private.
5) Attitude can mean everything, and in this case it means that your content lacks so you attack, unfoundedly AND erroneously.
I may have some wacko beliefs, but I'll never attack anyone for theirs.
You remind me of my taint. taint nuthin' but a hillbilly admin wannabe. you rule the internet brah. keep tellin' yourself.
My only response has been to tell him I do not really care about his opinion of me, and if he has a problem to post it in the only thread you post in. I just couldn't help getting in a last dig after he deleted his account.
StreetBum
I do not think Pakistan right now being armed is not the end of the world. However since if the Taliban does manage to come to power I would be worried about what they would do with them. The region does not need a nuclear war at the moment. This is pretty much how I feel about Iran getting them as well, the states that currently have an advanced program look at them as a deterrent, I think a lot of these smaller countries look at them as an offensive weapon. For that matter I think we should insist Isreal disarm at the same time, though they are less likely to begin a fight by using them.
2) YOU HAVE BEEN SNARKY BECAUSE OF MY POSITION AND YOU HAVE ATTACKED ME WHILE MISSING THE POINT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
3) I have been here since 2004 in one form or another and have discussed music on several occasions, Mr. Content Admin. I have provided recipes, tarp tricks, contributed to charitable causes, et alia. But I don't have anything to prove to your limited tunnelvision attempt to emulate yourself OH Swagmaster....
4) You are no longer worth my time since you don't have the balls to fess up to your mistakes and continue to try to roll on the offensive. I will no longer address you in public or private.
5) Attitude can mean everything, and in this case it means that your content lacks so you attack, unfoundedly AND erroneously.
I may have some wacko beliefs, but I'll never attack anyone for theirs.
You remind me of my taint. taint nuthin' but a hillbilly admin wannabe. you rule the internet brah. keep tellin' yourself.
Shouldn't #4 be #5? "I'm not gonna talk to you anymore... Except now. And now. And again."
Damn, and I was actually looking forward to continuing some of that dialogue with blue/red.
I wanted to ask him how a president who is owned by the defense industry could get away with setting a defined withdrawal date from Afghanistan. I can't imagine how the war industry would want to let that cash cow end.
I wanted to ask him how a president who is owned by the defense industry could get away with setting a defined withdrawal date from Afghanistan. I can't imagine how the war industry would want to let that cash cow end.
I don't believe Obama is owned by the defense industry or anything like that. But one thing I can say is that a withdrawal date isn't set in stone. Like a movie premiere date.....it can always be pushed back due to other circumstances. Sometimes indefinitely.
I'm not saying he is either. That's exactly what I was getting at when blue & I were discussing OpenSecrets and campaign donations. He seemed to be saying that Obama was pro-war because of the amount of defense industry donations he received; I begged to differ.
I'm not saying he is either. That's exactly what I was getting at when blue & I were discussing OpenSecrets and campaign donations. He seemed to be saying that Obama was pro-war because of the amount of defense industry donations he received; I begged to differ.
I know you don't feel that way. I was just trying to come up with a logical answer to "why would they let him set a withdrawal date".
Post by StreetBum87 on Dec 3, 2009 15:47:32 GMT -5
but what about what the boss said? how?
also something i read. "in a nutshell the Repubs screwed the war and economy, the Dems are screwing Health care, the war and have bailed out the wealthiest Wall St folks around, 'tis all a joke..." food for thought?
I'd pin the Wall Street bailout on the GOP... bailout money came in two allocations under different administrations. Most of W's first wave went right to Wall Street/bankers with little or no strings attached. Second wave, under Obama, is more aimed at job creation (think road projects) and funding to states.
The Dems are screwing health care though. Not entirely on their own but the Blue Dogs are definitely doing what they can to water down reform. Even with a 60 vote super majority, the Dems can't agree on anything.
Initially I balked at the "withdraw date" thing. But, after a second thought, I think it is a good idea.
Why did you "balk" at it? Because you think they should be pulled out now? Or because you think there's no way to put a definite end date on something like this?
My first thought were, why would you tell the enemy when you are leaving? Why would they not just scale things back and wait for the Americans to leave? I think a good combination of offensive moves and training the Afgans to defend themselves is the answer, along with a date of withdraw. Hopefully this will create a sense of urgency or create a mindset of "We better get things in order while we have the chance".
Post by lordrockinhood on Dec 4, 2009 10:52:36 GMT -5
I have provided recipes
Hey, this goes back 2 or 3 years, but was Red/Blue the guy who used to have the Swedish Chef avatar on here? I can't remember what his name was, (Snoochie?) but this reminds me a lot of that guy from back then. He was a political regular who used to flame out and impulsively delete accounts, I think...
Hey, this goes back 2 or 3 years, but was Red/Blue the guy who used to have the Swedish Chef avatar on here? I can't remember what his name was, (Snoochie?) but this reminds me a lot of that guy from back then. He was a political regular who used to flame out and impulsively delete accounts, I think...
I thought it was weatherbill myself. Eerily enough in looking up weatherbill I found where he had a fairly correct premonition about the Titans game last Sunday, a full 5 or 6 days before the game.
The region does not need a nuclear war at the moment. This is pretty much how I feel about Iran getting them as well, the states that currently have an advanced program look at them as a deterrent, I think a lot of these smaller countries look at them as an offensive weapon. For that matter I think we should insist Isreal disarm at the same time, though they are less likely to begin a fight by using them.
Israel has been planning a strike against nuclear facilities in Iran for several years now. If Iran cannot be persuaded to abandon nuclear weapons development, an Israeli strike becomes a very real possibility. Such a strike will have at minimum tacit U.S. support.
What happens to the fragile, corrupt, U.S. backed government in Afghanistan if Iranian nuclear facilities are bombed, and there is a revulsion by Islamic countries in response? The Karzai government falls, U.S. efforts in Afghanistan become a total failure. The 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan is a protection force for the Karzai government in the event of an attack on nuclear facilities in Iran.
Given the announcement of an 18 month time-limit before the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the strike will happen within the 18-month time-frame. Full-force deployment of U.S. forces is scheduled for summer 2010. Iran has until summer to make verifiable the abandonment of its weapons development program. Remember, the U.S. troop surge into Afghanistan tells the Israelis we anticipate a strike against Iranian weapons facilities, and are ready for it to proceed.
Remember, Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons (officially). Do we think they'd keep that "secret" and use conventional bombs, or would they use the nuclear option?
I lean towards Nuclear, unless we can leash them in somehow. Israel tends to lean towards overwhelming force. I don't wish that on anyone, and it would turn the entire middle-east into a firestorm, but I fear that is the way they would go.
Also if Israel does use nukes I can promise they will use the ones that have American material inside so that we will be forced to stand beside them. I still say the dismantling of Israels arsenal should be at about the same importance as making sure Iran does not get one.
On a further not Tom Clancy of all people I still think had the best solution for most of the crisis in That area. Just turn Jerusalem into a city state like the Vatican make it the headquarters for the UN, and run it with a Christian/Jewish/Muslim Triumverate where each party has veto power. I think that would defuse a lot of the situation pretty quickly.
Last Edit: Dec 7, 2009 14:55:08 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Remember, Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons (officially). Do we think they'd keep that "secret" and use conventional bombs, or would they use the nuclear option?
I lean towards Nuclear, unless we can leash them in somehow. Israel tends to lean towards overwhelming force. I don't wish that on anyone, and it would turn the entire middle-east into a firestorm, but I fear that is the way they would go.
An Israeli strike against nuclear facilities in Iran will be surgical and non-nuclear, probably using bunker-busting precision munitions supplied by the U.S. Israel asked President Bush for these weapons in 2008, after the U.S. surge in Iraq was determined to be successful. Bush "deflected" Israel's request for bunker-busters. Israel was probably provided proven designs for this type of weapon, and no doubt has them in production by now.
No matter how limited, surgical and contained the strike against Iran, there will be vehement criticism by Islamic countries against Israel and the U.S. There will be resentment and rage in the streets against any Islamic government with close U.S. relations. As it stands, in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran, the current government in Afghanistan will most likely fall absent the U.S. military surge now being implemented.
At the very least, Israel will feel emboldened to launch a strike after the U.S. reinforces the fragile government in Afghanistan we've worked so hard to install.
^In other Iran news it sounds like they are going crazy in the streets there today, I understand the other side does not like us much better but anything that destabilizes the regime at this point is a good thing.
A Thieve's Parade 2/24 Conspirator 2/26 Kevin Smith 3/11 Keller 3/17 Papadosio 3/18 JJ Grey 3/25 Bela Fleck/Edgar Meyer 3/26 Toubab Krewe 3/27 O'Death 4/11 Budos Band 4/22 EOTO 4/28 Summer Camp 5/6-29 All Good